<I don't doubt that it was possible to build quite a good computer from the
<board selection that the CompuPro line had, at one time or another. I
<bought about ten combinations they recommended, however, and not a one of
Try this,
STD Compupro s100 crate.
CPU-Z Z80
Ram17
MPX-1
DISK1
DISK3
InterfacerII
Runs killer, no repairs needed depite the boards last being powered in '92.
<Once there was a standard, I don't believe that any other single
I could never figure it out. If anything after working with Multibus,
Qbus and Omnibus s100 was pure anarchy though somewhat tolerent of bizzare
variations.
<manufacturer did more to undermine the standard than CompuPro. Their board
<were not all claimed "compliant" to the standard and even those about whic
<that claim was made often had little footnotes disclaiming certain things
<and indicting where they felt their board didn't comply precisely. Since
<that set a model for others, even if they didn't originate the practice,
Based on the manuals I have (fairly complete) and expereince they were
pushing IEE696 and no question their interpretation was somewhat off.
Then again my NS*, Computime and CCS systems don't come close either.
IEEE spec was pretty late in the game and was influenced more by the
intel cpu timings (8085 and 8086 series).
<non-compliant boards were proliferated throughout the S-100 world, spreadin
<non-interoperability throughout. This lead people to throw up their hands
It was already there, that was what IEE696 was supposed to fix long after
the barn emptied and burned. Like none of the Teltek (or Konan) cards
work in NS* crates due to some lines being grounded and the expectation of
address mirroring on IO.
<at the prospect of continuing to use S-100 systems in favor of the
<relatively risk-free SBC's which were becoming VERY popular, e.g. Ferguson
<Big Board, Ampro, et. al. and offered CP/M standard media compatibility at
<the disk level and all the basic features built-in.
That part I can't agree with more. S100 interoperability was at best
terrible and generally systems integration was a true challenge. My
Ampro and SB180 systems are compact, fast and worked (and still do) as
advertized! Bus based systems are flexible, but without well established
standards it can be tough to make them work with third party boards.
My qbus and multibus experience also shows with a good solid specification
it's still possible to produce a third party board that is marginal.
<The IEEE Std.696 board scheme couldn't survive if it wasn't sincerely
<implemented.
True.. it required lot of stuff including timing specs that most Z80s
didn't meet. It's worst fault was the adption was near the end of the
S100s life span when there were already a flooded market of non conforming
boards. While I was a user and adopted it S100 was a terrible bus!
Allison
Received on Tue Jun 22 1999 - 22:20:34 BST